57 comments:

The cop was there to talk about personal safety. But giving them tips to avoid personal crimes is an insult because women have the right to not be victimized, whether it's rape, a mugging, or a punch in the nose. (Wasn't "Take Back the Night" about not being able to walk alone after dark?)

To prevent criticism, cops need to stick to non-controversial safety tips such as unplugging the toaster before reaching in with a fork.

I think we have to make a distinction between the pragmatism of dressing provocatively and the morality of it. If the cop was making his comment in the pragmatic sense, then I don't see a problem with it (assuming that he's right that provocatively dressed women are more likely to be assaulted). But it's hard to divorce that from making a moral judgment about dressing provocatively, which will inevitably lead to the implication, "You did something immoral, and then something immoral was done to you." Or, in other words, it sounds like one is saying the rape victim deserved to be assaulted, which is simply beyond the pale.

The cop's comment were absurd, and anybody who doesn't think so needs to get his or her head out of their ass. One of the early responses to this story initially was from a woman who told of being a victim of rape as a child. Her attacker pulled off her snow pants in a stairwell. I'd be fascinated to know the correlation between provocative attire or behavior and becoming a victim. I'd guess it's barely there.

This is not a feminist issue you utter twats. It's a common sense and common decency issue. The cop's remarks were the rough equivalent of saying that if men want to avoid being the victims of domestic violence they shouldn't be caught listening to Enya CDs. It's denigrating beyond any reason, and absent evidence of causation or at least correlation, it's also shockingly stupid.

Like I give a snap if a bunch of twats willing to compare a human being to a Porche 'respect' my arguments. Why don't you worry about the integrity of the argument instead. Somebody produce some evidence that provocative clothing is a significant enough risk factor in sexual assault to have warranted the cop's comments and I will apologize to all the twats.

Snark said... Like I give a snap if a bunch of twats willing to compare a human being to a Porche 'respect' my arguments. Why don't you worry about the integrity of the argument instead.

But first you have to acknowledge the difference between a police officer pointing out what he thinks increases a predatory risk versus someone arguing that that same perceived vulnerability to predation is a justification for a predator's criminal actions.

The people behind the "I love sluts" demonstrations are actively trying to blur that distinction for self-righteous political reasons.

If a police officer tells women not to dress like 'sluts' (such precision of epression!) to avoid being assaulted, but there is no evidence that attire makes any meaningful difference to being a rape victim, what do you think that combination of power, influence and ignorance might skew? Reporting almost certainly, as well as misplaced guilt and shame and unnecessary psychological trauma. Male victims of rape are almost certainly the most vulnerable to false pressures like this on an individual basis. Self righteous protest my ass.

Thank you for this opportunity for further reflections on the semiotics of half naked women. It is counter intuitive to say this, but slutty clothes actually indicate a society that is self controlled and moral. A woman will wear more revealing clothes to a Saturday night party than to the office Monday. She does this precisely because she is among friends and has trust in their good behavior. This trust may, on occasion, be misplaced, but, in general, women know where to draw the line and men respect that line. The sluttiness of the clothes is directly proportional to the trust women feel in the community of men that surround her. I don't know the statistics but my guess is that there are more incidents of sexual harrassment in Saudi Arabia than on topless beaches in France.

Further reflections on slutty clothes: The dividing line between slut and seductive lies not in the clothes but in the eyes of the beholder--literally. The outfit that Kate Middleton wore that attacted the attention of Prince WIlliam was a bikini topped by a see through, baby doll negligee. This is arguably a slutty outfit. Certainly not the garment of choice for a night out at the biker bar. However, she wore it to a fashion show. Her target audience was Debrett's Peerage not Hell's Angels, and she hit her mark. Discretion is not shown in choosing modest clothes but in choosing the right audience for immodest ones.

"Certainly not the garment of choice for a night out at the biker bar."

Really? That's not what Snark says. I think the officer's point was that women need to consider their audience when choosing their attire--which seems to coincide with William's point. Perhaps the officer could have worded it more tactfully.

I haven't said one word about who should wear what where. Such a stunning number of ideologues all in one place, so keen to make irrational and factually unsupported points that said ideologues don't even care if they make a lick of sense.

I fear ignorance and pseudo knowledge no matter what the topic. Studies and statistics do exist on this issue. The ones surrounding third party attribution are sadly clear. The ones relating to cause tend to have a preponderance of the word 'may'. Some link submissiveness, which correlates with modest dress in the studies, with becoming a victim. A federal report that is often quoted says just 4.4% of cases are related to provocative behavior. But, you know, ramble on. Whatever. I like real information, not nonsense in service of some sad need to make everything like this about feminism run amok. Feminism has run amok on some fronts, but this isn't one of them.

Snark said..."The cop's comment were absurd, and anybody who doesn't think so needs to get his or her head out of their ass. One of the early responses to this story initially was from a woman who told of being a victim of rape as a child. Her attacker pulled off her snow pants in a stairwell. I'd be fascinated to know the correlation between provocative attire or behavior and becoming a victim. I'd guess it's barely there."

Okay, let's test the coherence of that. Let's say there was a cop giving a talk about how to avoid robbery, and he said "Don't dangle your purse on the tips of your fingers as you walk down the street alone at night," and someone said, "But once I was carrying money in a pocket underneath a buttoned jacket, and I was robbed at gunpoint and the robber reached in and took the money." Would we then say, oh, I see, then the cop's point was wrong?

@Ann: That wasn't my point, but the structure of my comment left me open to that criticism. I meant something else entirely, and if I thought there was any worth in spending much more of life on this I'd clarify. I don't think there's much worth in that, but anybody who is interested can search for the snow pants woman's comments in their full context and judge their relevance to this issue. Or callously dismiss her experience of the officer's comments, which frankly I find more likely.

@Ralph: Can we agree that when the issue at hand is trying to understand something complex and unfamiliar to most of us we should not be invited to agree on facts pulled straight out of somebody's ass? Probably not, sadly.

@dbp: I've fairly reflected the fundamental scope of the literature in a previous post. The opinions of psychiatrists fall in the third party attribution category which generally reflect similar statistics. Examinations of actual crimes rather than attitudes towards those crimes typically tell a very different story. I have no particular interest in rape or women's issues, but I have a strong interest in fairness and rational and fact based thinking. Almost no evidence of that in this discussion, and to what end? To piss and moan about something just because it smacks of feminism or liberalism or some other ism that you find offensive? Sad, and ugly.

The problem with Snark is that she is geared only to rape. The difference is in the way women are treated based on how they dress. If you dress like a slut and go out to the clubs, which person will be treated as if they were a whore, the one who dresses like a slut or the one who doesn't. Assume you are not a slut. Would it bother you to be treated by strangers as if you were? You are also trying to limit it to the people you surround yourself with. When you go out, you not only are surrounded by those you came with but also by those who do not know you. If you can keep away from those who do not know you so that they cannot treat you as if you were a whore, then go for it. However, if you dress like a whore and then get treated like a whore to the point of someone asking your price and that would not bother you, then again go for it. However, if your price is asked and you act all upset that someone would think that, then take a good look at the way you dressed and maybe then you would figure it out.

What you have done is try to narrow the whole situation to something that matches what you want the result to be and then bitch like hell that a cop takes a different approach and treat him like a troglodyte. Instead he is just trying to get you to be treated like a real person instead of a two bit whore. If that doesn't offend you, then again go for it but I would bet that most women would get very upset if they were treated like a whore when they really aren't. It is totally your call as to how you get treated. Obviously you don't really care but don't try to pass your ideals off as being those of the whole rest of the world and the only ones that make sense. They truly don't.

I think the problem with Snark is she is assuming there's only one motivation for rapists. I think there are probably a few different ones. Sexual gratification would be one of those. That's where the cop's advice (and mothers' advice) applies.

It might be difficult to objectively study the cause(s) of rape because of the political baggage now. It would be like trying to study test score differences between racial groups or intelligence differences between men and women. A lot of PC minefields to be negotiated.

Snark said... @Ann: That wasn't my point, but the structure of my comment left me open to that criticism. I meant something else entirely, and if I thought there was any worth in spending much more of life on this I'd clarify.

Laugh out loud funny.

You then proceeded to type 4 subsequent comments.

There is a reason you can't respond and everyone reading knows what it is...